Do interventions containing risk messages increase risk appraisal and the subsequent vaccination intentions and uptake?:A systematic review and meta-analysis

Purpose There is good evidence that for many behaviours, increasing risk appraisal can lead to a change in behaviour, heightened when efficacy appraisals are also increased. The present systematic review addressed whether interventions presenting a risk message increase risk appraisal and an increase in vaccination intentions and uptake. Method A systematic search identified randomized controlled trials of interventions presenting a risk message and measuring risk appraisal and intentions and uptake post-intervention. Random-effects meta-analyses investigated the size of the effect that interventions had on vaccination risk appraisal and on vaccination behaviour or intention to vaccinate, and the size of the relationship between vaccination risk appraisal and vaccination intentions and uptake. Results Eighteen studies were included and 16 meta-analysed. Interventions overall had small significant effects on risk appraisal (d = 0.161, p = .047) and perceptions of susceptibility (d = 0.195, p = .025), but no effect on perceptions of severity (d = −0.036, p = .828). Interventions showed no effect on intention to vaccinate (d = 0.138, p = .195) and no effect on vaccination behaviour (d = 0.043, p = .826). Interventions typically did not include many behaviour change techniques (BCTs), with the most common BCT unique to intervention conditions being ‘Information about Health Consequences’. Few of the included studies attempted to, or successfully increased, efficacy appraisals. Conclusions Overall, there is a lack of good-quality primary studies, and existing interventions are suboptimal. The inclusion of additional BCTs, including those to target efficacy appraisals, could increase intervention effectiveness. The protocol (CRD42015029365) is available from http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/

Personal solar ultraviolet radiation dosimetry in an\ua0occupational setting across Europe

Background: Work-related solar ultraviolet radiation (UVR) is an important factor in the pathogenesis of non-melanoma skin cancer (NMSC). The World Health Organization, through the International Agency for Research on Cancer, has classified solar UVR as a group 1 carcinogen since 2012. The main problems encountered so far in the study of occupationally induced skin cancer include the lack of accurate occupational UVR dosimetry as well as insufficient distinction between occupational and leisure UVR exposure and underreporting of NMSC. Objectives: The aim of this study was to collect long-term individual UVR measurements in outdoor workers across European countries. Methods: A prospective study was initiated through the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, Healthy Skin@Work Campaign, measuring UVR exposure doses at occupational settings of masons from five European countries. Measurements were performed for several consecutive months using the GENESIS-UV measurement system. Results: The results identified alarming UVR exposure data. Average daily UVR doses ranged 148.40–680.48 J/m2 in Romania, 342.4–640.8 J/m2 in Italy, 165.5–466.2 J/m2 in Croatia, 41.8–473.8 J/m2 in Denmark and 88.15–400.22 J/m2 in Germany. Results showed an expected latitude dependence with increasing UVR yearly dosage from the north to the south of Europe. Conclusions: This study shows that outdoor workers from EU countries included in this study are exposed to high levels of occupational solar UVR, vastly exceeding the occupational exposure limits for solar UVR exposure, considered to be 1–1.33 SED/day in the period from May to September. This finding may serve as an evidence-based recommendation to authorities on implementing occupational skin cancer prevention strategies

On the implications of desexualizing vaccines against sexually transmitted diseases: health policy challenges in a multicultural society

Two vaccines against sexually transmitted infections are included in many national vaccination programs: Hepatitis B Virus (HBV) vaccine and Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) vaccine. The trajectories of the implementation of these two programs were marked by differences in the way the sexual context of risk was communicated to the public. These trajectories fluctuated between full accounts of the sexual nature of the infection and attempts to desexualize the vaccines. Vaccine desexualization can be achieved by withholding information of sexual context, blurring information, and distancing the age of vaccination from the age of sexual debut. Desexualization may be advantageous in promoting public health and personal health of people who believe that HPV vaccination leads to increased promiscuity, people who believe that protection against STD is not relevant to their children, and people who are not comfortable discussing the sexuality of their children. On the other hand, desexualizing may be disadvantageous for children to parents who tend to express passiveness towards vaccination, parents who attribute importance to sex education, and teenagers with homosexual orientations. The ethical analysis of vaccine desexualization reveals a complex interplay of considerations related to utility, causation of harm, duty of transparency, right to know, and right not to know. This analysis suggests that the moral merits of applying desexualization are questionable. Lastly, a sociopolitical consideration of the matter, suggests that decisions on vaccine desexualization can have implications on the interrelationships between various social groups and subgroups composing a certain population, and may highlight intercultural schisms. All this indicates that shaping the sexual framework of vaccination programs bears implications far beyond the practical considerations of vaccine promotion